Rowan MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool sanitizes a protein but doesn't disclose what 'sanitize' entails (e.g., structural cleanup, format conversion, validation), whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, or rate limits. The description is vague about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured but somewhat redundant with the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns statement is minimal and could be more informative if not for the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its complexity. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, though it lacks details on behavioral aspects. The output schema handles return values, so the description's minimal Returns statement is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented in the schema as 'UUID of the protein to sanitize'. The description repeats this exactly in the Args section, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sanitize a protein for docking.' It specifies the action (sanitize) and resource (protein) with a clear goal (for docking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_protein' or 'create_protein_from_pdb_id', which might also involve protein preparation steps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the protein must already exist in the system), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'submit_docking_workflow' that might involve docking processes. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.